US Election: 2016

[Fishbone Jones]

Hmmm, who do I know in the US Citizen and Immigration Department

 

[blacktriangle]

I'm personally excited to start wearing my "Trump 2016" shirt around downtown Ottawa.

 

[CougarKing]

GOP infighting?

Associated Press

Supporters, protesters clash outside Trump rally in Utah
[The Canadian Press]
Michelle L. Price And Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press

March 19, 2016

SALT LAKE CITY - Protesters clashed with supporters of Donald Trump after he gave a speech in Utah on Friday, ending a day full of presidential candidate appearances that also saw Mitt Romney intensifying his criticism of the GOP front-runner.

Hundreds of people chanted "Dump Trump" and "Mr. Hate Out of Our State" as police in riot gear blocked the entrance to the Salt Lake City building, after protesters tried to rush the door and got into dozens of screaming matches with Trump supporters who didn't make into the venue.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[George Wallace]

How about an honest look at what happened in Tucson recently......A person posting their review of how the events went down:

https://www.facebook.com/Tatumbug34/videos/988608861209475/ 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I wasn't expecting to hear what the man was saying from the Trump side of the rally.  I have been misunderstanding what has been going on as it seems the MSM seem to have the same anti-Trump bias that they had with the anti-Harper bias during our election.  I thought the shit disturbers were on the Republican side. 

Excellent post George, thanks for the education.

 

[cupper]

It's actually both sides that can accept blame for what has been going on.

There has been a concerted effort that continues to increase in intensity by the anti-Trump forces, a significant percentage made up on non-Republicans.

At the same time, many of the more vocal and intense supporters on the fringe are openly confrontational to the point of hostility and violence.

And Trump knows that this keeps him in the forefront of the media cycle, and reinforces his support. And if you have any doubts about that, ask yourself why is Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on the arena floor confronting protestors when his job should be on the stage with Trump, or behind the stage coordinating the campaign message.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So far as I can tell, Trump is personally renting these venues. That makes them private venues. Just like a band for a concert. As such, I believe that gives him the right to decide who and who is not allowed to attend. If he has security throw out a rabble rouser or someone involved in a physical melee, that's his right and prerogative.

Just like you can toss a wedding crasher from your reception.

 

[CougarKing]

If he does become POTUS, will Air Force One have the big TRUMP corporate logo stencilled on the side much like the grey-red jet you see behind him in airport rallies? Trump One?  ;D

Canadian Press

Trump's immigration stance resonates at tense rallies

Ryan Vanvelzer And Jacques Billeaud, The Associated Press
The Canadian Press
March 20, 2016

TUCSON, Ariz. - Donald Trump's campaign in Arizona is centred on his hard line against illegal immigration, a stand that supporters embraced in a series of tense rallies ahead of Tuesday's presidential primary in the border state.

"Illegal immigration is gonna stop," Trump said Saturday night in Tucson. "It's dangerous," he said. "Terrible."

Both in Phoenix and Tucson, Trump was introduced by former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who pushed tough immigration laws in office, and Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County sheriff who made his name by chasing down people who are in the country illegally. The county includes Phoenix and nearly two-thirds of Arizona's population.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[George Wallace]

It's actually both sides that can accept blame for what has been going on.

There has been a concerted effort that continues to increase in intensity by the anti-Trump forces, a significant percentage made up on non-Republicans.

At the same time, many of the more vocal and intense supporters on the fringe are openly confrontational to the point of hostility and violence.

And Trump knows that this keeps him in the forefront of the media cycle, and reinforces his support. And if you have any doubts about that, ask yourself why is Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on the arena floor confronting protestors when his job should be on the stage with Trump, or behind the stage coordinating the campaign message.

I guess you never viewed the link I provided that gave a non-partisan eye-witness account from a person curious as to what Trump had to say and was not a "die-hard" Trump supporter as you would brand anyone who attends Trump's "privately rented venues".  Seems that the "Hate Harper" crowd have adopted a "Hate Trump" attitude to match that of many fanatics in the US.

 

[cupper]

I guess you never viewed the link I provided that gave a non-partisan eye-witness account from a person curious as to what Trump had to say and was not a "die-hard" Trump supporter as you would brand anyone who attends Trump's "privately rented venues".  Seems that the "Hate Harper" crowd have adopted a "Hate Trump" attitude to match that of many fanatics in the US.

No, I did view the video. And it's one person's experience at one venue. And I do not dispute the accuracy of what the gentleman was saying. But for every example of this point of view, there is an example of the opposite point of view. Case in point was the assault on the protestor being lead out of a venue by an old guy who throws an elbow at the guy's head.

I stand by my point that both sides carry blame. The anti-Trump protestors are upping their intensity with each new event and have gone from presenting an opposing viewpoint to only focusing on shutting down the message. But Trump stirs up the intensity by making statements such as he has about wanting to take a swing at a protestor. Or offering to pay for legal services in the defense of someone who might be arrested for assaulting a protestor. (Which flies in the face of any disclaimer that they announce prior to the start of the event)

 

[George Wallace]

No, I did view the video. And it's one person's experience at one venue. And I do not dispute the accuracy of what the gentleman was saying. But for every example of this point of view, there is an example of the opposite point of view. Case in point was the assault on the protestor being lead out of a venue by an old guy who throws an elbow at the guy's head.

Ah!  So you are following the MSM version of what you saw.  You don't know what caused the old guy to throw those punches.  Did the protester spit on the old man or otherwise physically or verbally assault the old guy?  You just go by the sound bit that the MSM shows you.  EXACTLY what the guy said in that video, you are only seeing what the MSM want you to see.

I stand by my point that both sides carry blame. The anti-Trump protestors are upping their intensity with each new event and have gone from presenting an opposing viewpoint to only focusing on shutting down the message. But Trump stirs up the intensity by making statements such as he has about wanting to take a swing at a protestor. Or offering to pay for legal services in the defense of someone who might be arrested for assaulting a protestor. (Which flies in the face of any disclaimer that they announce prior to the start of the event)

As was pointed out by the fellow in the video, a vast majority of those anti-Trump protesters are closed minded, ignorant and just plain hateful trouble makers.   

 

[cupper]

Ah!  So you are following the MSM version of what you saw.  You don't know what caused the old guy to throw those punches.  Did the protester spit on the old man or otherwise physically or verbally assault the old guy?  You just go by the sound bit that the MSM shows you.  EXACTLY what the guy said in that video, you are only seeing what the MSM want you to see.

You're making assumptions again that I am basing this on the video of the old guy after the attack. It's obvious from the several views of the actual incident in question that the attack was unprovoked. The videos that came out after the fact about what the old guys said just show how much of an ass the guy was. The appalling part of that whole incident was the reaction by the sheriffs deputies escorting the protestor out. They've been given reprimands and will be on administrative probation for failing to perform their duties. 

As was pointed out by the fellow in the video, a vast majority of those anti-Trump protesters are closed minded, ignorant and just plain hateful trouble makers. 

And I don't dispute that. I've never questioned that the protestors have been stirring up trouble, and provoking their fair of what has occurred.

 

[CougarKing]

Aren't there a lot of Canadians who live in Phoenix part of the year? (Snowbirds etc.)

Canadian Press

Mixed reactions to Trump's border wall along Arizona border
[The Canadian Press]
Astrid Galvan And Brian Skoloff, The Associated Press

March 21, 2016

NOGALES, Ariz. - Donald Trump's ambitious plan to build a giant wall on the border hits close to home for people like Berenice Andrews.

The front door of her family's home is just feet away from a fence separating the U.S. and Mexico. The home is so close to Mexico that the sounds of schoolchildren at play south of the border can be heard. So can buses along a main thoroughfare on the Mexico side.

As the presidential contest shifts to Arizona and its Tuesday primary, Trump's wall stirs up a range of emotions among border-area residents like Andrews. For some, nothing short of a wall will do. For her, the fence that currently divides the U.S. and Mexico is a good enough barrier.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Kilo_302]

Aren't there a lot of Canadians who live in Phoenix part of the year? (Snowbirds etc.)

Canadian Press

Actually my parents are visiting friends in AZ this week, and are trying to get to a Trump rally AND a Sanders rally if possible. You know, for posterity's sake.  It's "End of the Empire" tourism. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Good for them on trying to see both camps, first hand.

 

[Kilo_302]

Excellent Jacobin piece arguing that the positioning of Trump as  fascist makes it easier for faux-progressives like Clinton to "to pose as high-minded defenders of decency in public life and democratic values. To put it kindly, these terms would not likely be associated with her dynastic candidacy if she could not transplant #ReadyforHillary onto the contest of “status quo versus barbarism.”"

I disagree with the author in that I would argue that labelling Trump fascist by definition accepts that Trump is a reaction to politicians like Hillary. By extension this disqualifies any legitimate support for her. The author however argues that we should be considering such labels with practical politics in mind, and makes quite a good case. Interesting bit about liberalism and the Brits as well.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/trump-clinton-sanders-fascism-primaries-gop-establishment/

To brand someone a fascist is to invite a rarely rewarding debate over definitions. Indeed, if even Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had no common theory for what they were doing, it is puzzling to hear the category “fascism” extended to Ba’athism, ISIS, or, indeed, the rise of Donald Trump’s white nationalist movement.

Not only are these examples not all united by classically fascist themes of national rebirth, economic corporatism, or armed expansionism, but nor are these themes the sole preserve of fascists. We never seem to discuss it, but even good-old British liberalism had its millions of dead and its concentration camps. But in media-political discourse the use of “fascist” normally means little but a bully who doesn’t respect the rules. And its use often tells us more about the person making the accusation than the intended target.

After all, the invocation of fascism is a long-established call to arms — a demand for unity against the outside threat. An inflated story of Churchill’s refusal to appease Nazism still today justifies many an imperial exploit, with the numbers of modern-day Hitlers who must be combated (Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi . . .) seemingly ever-increasing despite our efforts to bomb their subjects into submission. Never mind what we’re trying to achieve — the Nazis are coming. And appeals to antifascism now also make their appearance in the (currently) less violent setting of the US presidential primaries.

The portrayal of Trump as not just a worse racist and nationalist than his opponents, but a fascist, allows the likes of Hillary Clinton to pose as high-minded defenders of decency in public life and democratic values. To put it kindly, these terms would not likely be associated with her dynastic candidacy if she could not transplant #ReadyforHillary onto the contest of “status quo versus barbarism.”

Dylan Riley has aptly referred to this as the “hysterical lesser-evilism implicit” in calling the Republican front-runner a fascist — a call for maximum unity behind the Democratic nominee, on whatever platform. It is a program for demobilization, turning movements for social change into conservative get-out-the-vote operations.

Of course, it is easy to see why this could work. Media are already predicting a very high turnout of black, female, and young voters in November, to stop Trump. And quite rightly. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, she will, indeed, be the lesser of two evils. Her rule would do less to galvanize racist cops, and probably also mean less economic chaos, than would Trump’s. Her supporters will not beat up black people at her rallies.

But what is obnoxious is the use of these facts to demand message discipline in advance; as if Sanders’s candidacy itself, or even the mere discussion of Clinton’s terrible record on race, active role in the Middle East collapse, or shameless service of the super-rich is somehow “letting the side down” when all progressive forces must be devoted to bashing Trump. Out with Black Lives Matter and the movement against the 1 percent; in with the defense of corporate liberalism. Such is Clinton’s cynical antifascism.

Indeed, although almost all polls suggest Bernie Sanders would actually do better than Hillary in a head-to-head with the Donald, lesser-evil antifascism is near-exclusively invoked as a call to rally behind the former secretary of state. Sure, she isn’t what you wanted — the argument goes — but you have no choice, because only her impeccable moderation can win over center-right voters — and the alternative is fascism.

Something of a parallel dynamic is happening even among Republicans, as party grandees seeking a more establishment candidate now rally behind Ted Cruz — the single figure closest to Trump’s misogyny and racism, and with a divine mission to boot — in order to steal some of the front-runner’s hard-right clothes.

Hence lesser-evilism drags the whole political spectrum toward the lesser evil — or rather, helps the second-worst evil pose as your antifascist friend. Even as his Republican competitors profess their outrage at Trump’s demagoguery, all of them have been pulled right during the campaign, with Cruz even imitating the demand to build the wall across the Mexican border.

And so, too, would Clinton invariably tack to the center or center-right if she were the Democratic nominee, anti-Trumpism providing her the perfect excuse to roll back all previous concessions made to the Sanders movement. A corrupt establishment insider and leader of the war on terror (the proponent of what would have been a disastrous attack on Syria) thus comes to stand for decency and caution.

Ironically, it is Trump’s areas of similarity with classical fascism that most demonstrate the dangers of such establishment lesser-evilism. Firstly, because the coronation of an elite figure like Hillary feeds the far right’s claim to represent the sole anti-establishment voice, for want of any candidate giving a left-populist alternative to working-class and left-behind rural Americans. Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of the current campaign is Trump’s particular success agitating among poor whites, with around 10 percent of Sanders’s supporters threatening to vote for the billionaire over Clinton. Secondly, because tacking right to meet the fascist danger effectively means more poverty, more attacks on racial minorities, and more violence both at home and abroad.

Indeed, history hardly demonstrates that established bourgeois elites are an ally for the Left against far-right populism, even in its overtly fascist form.

The German Social Democrats voted for the conservative nationalist Paul von Hindenburg to stop Adolf Hitler in 1932, withdrawing their own candidacy while using their police powers to repress Communists; Hindenburg won, and then appointed Hitler chancellor just one year later. Benito Mussolini denounced the entire political elite, boisterously vaunting “the theory of action, not words”; sure that they could contain him within establishment ranks, it was the Liberals who voted his first government into office, inaugurating a twenty-year regime.

Fascism is not coming to America, and it remains highly probable that Clinton will win the presidency come November. But a very real danger exists of something like the current French situation developing: the far right becoming the sole anti-establishment force, hoovering up working-class support from the Left, while liberal elites club together in defense of republican legality.

The establishment adopts ever harsher anti-immigrant measures to quell the populist storm, street racism is fueled, and the far right increasingly claims a monopoly of dissent. All that can result is a toxic mix of precarity and violence — a rising far-right populism fed by the cynical antifascism of the elites.

 

[CougarKing]

I don't think Kasich has much of a chance to catch up to either Trump or Cruz.

Reuters video

Kasich calls for 'active steps' to strengthen US-Israel ties
by Reuters Videos 1:17 mins

Republican presidential candidate John Kasich calls for "active steps" to strengthen ties between the U.S. and Israel, including suspending U.S. participation in Iran deal. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't think Kasich has much of a chance to catch up to either Trump or Cruz.

Reuters video

Yup. Months late and sincerity short.

 

[Rifleman62]

And he's boring. Same speech, delivered like a dull politician (which he is), saying how great his "accomplishments" are.

 

[cavalryman]

Blue on blue fire is getting interesting
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-clinton-slams-barack-obamas-awful-legacy/article/2586419

Former President Bill Clinton asked Democratic voters to shrug off the "awful legacy" of President Obama's years in office in a speech Monday to support Hillary Clinton's campaign.